Received: 11 June 2018 Revised: 17 December 2018 Accepted: 11 January 2019

DOI: 10.1002/sd.1935

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Ensuring sustainable development by curbing consumerism: An

eco‐spiritual perspective

Prerna Jain1 | Pragati Jain2

1
Department of Economics, Jaipuria Institute
of Management, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
2
Department of Economics, Central
University of Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan,
India
Correspondence
Prerna Jain, Department of Economics,
Jaipuria Institute of Management, 1‐Bambala
Institutional Area, Pratap Nagar Sanganer,
Jaipur, Rajasthan 302033, India.
Email: prerna.jain@jaipuria.ac.in
Abstract
The contemporary economic growth models have directed the economies on an unsus-
tainable trajectory where the present generation seems disenchanted with the heap of
waste, debt, and insufficiency inherited from their forefathers. The present paper is
an attempt to analyze the cause of consumerism and recommend an eco‐spiritual
policy perspective for ensuring sustainable development. The paper analyzes that
the United Nations recently announced Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
cannot lead the economies towards sustainable development. Ensuring sustainable
development will require curbing consumerism consciously through exploring the
unexplored spiritual dimension, which can inspire humanity to lead a life of simplicity,
moderation, and minimum desires for sustainable and all‐inclusive development. It
has been stressed that aspiration of breakthrough result requires moving away from
the external to the inward synthesis of the spiritual aspects, which believes in
co‐existence, acknowledging care, and concern for both human beings and the nature.
The paper argues for an eco‐spiritual perspective for furthering the goal of
sustainability.

KEY W ORDS

consumerism, ecological footprint, eco‐spiritual, human development index, policy perspective,

sustainable development, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N Interactive Dialogue 3 (2015) emphasizes developed countries to

“An empty stomach is one problem, but a full stomach a hundred
problems” (Sadhguru, 2016). This is the fate of the contemporary
growth models. Kenneth Galbraith (1958) states that production
reached the heights of absurdity when the argument gained
momentum that it is a necessary condition for thriving economy and
an insurance against economic depression, but he outlined a striking
paradox that the practice of thrift can plunge an affluent society into
deep economic depression. Thus, present social, moral, and environ-
mental scenario of the world can largely be attributed to the neoliberal
economic growth models (Khan, 2015). Relentless economic
expansion based on consumerism has brought inequity and ecological
bankruptcy. The underdeveloped world needs growth, but the
developed world requires degrowth for not merely sustenance but
for reasons long sought by the human spirit. The United Nations
exemplify the sustainable economic growth process by decoupling
economic growth from environmental degradation through resource
efficiency in consumption and production, reduction in waste genera-
tion, and incentivizing activities that are environmentally sound.
Spreading awareness about the different lifestyles on the environment
can induce individuals to behave in harmony with nature.
Research (Orecchia & Zoppoli, 2007; Guercio, 2015) has revealed
that more stuff has snatched away the health (physical as well as men-
tal) and happiness leaving economies in wilderness. Meadows,
Meadows, Randers, and Behrens (1972) pointed the excessive use of
planetary resources and the dire need for economies to live within
ecological boundaries. Harangozo, Csutora, and Kocsis (2018) too
pointed the need to respect the planetary limits and argued that for
creating a sustainable economy, the present conventional growth
model must be changed. Tamas (1999) emphasized that the present

Sustainable Development. 2019;1–7. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sd © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment 1
2 JAIN AND JAIN
development models focusing on the material aspects of life are
fundamentally flawed as they have widened the gulf between rich
and poor, are responsible for environmental deterioration and social
breakdown, and are incapable of addressing humanity's need.
Of course, development is essential for humans to flourish and
progress, but it is really worthwhile to ask how much and what kind
of development is to be sought for the humans to really maintain the
humanity. Friend (1992) highlighted two opposing views regarding
sustainable development. One is that sustainable development is
unattainable due to the voracious appetite for materialism and high
population growth, and another, an optimistic one, is that human
ingenuity can overcome this daunting task by introducing substitutes
for exhausted resources and energy efficient and waste‐reducing
technologies. All the economies at present are pleading for sustainabil-
ity, but the analysis in this paper suggests that even the recently
announced Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are directed
towards unsustainability, which seems astonishing, but this is the
reality. The question that needs attention is: for how long are we going
to live with blueprints that clearly have not delivered their promise?
The paper argues that now is the time to evolve consciously and take
charge of the reality for the benefit of the humanity.
2 | NEED FOR SUSTAINABLE
D E V E L O P M E NT
The need for sustainable development has been echoed since 1987
with the publication of Brundtland Report. Since then, the develop-
ment models have been questioned (Assadourian, 2016; Barros,
2012; FEEM, 2011; Hay, 2006) as they have made us go beyond limits
leaving a debt that seems unpayable. The present consumption
patterns cannot be met by a finite planet, and two planets shall be
required to meet the ever increasing consumption (Global Footprint
Network, 2017). Hediger (2006) urged for progressive transformation
of economies as the growth models have led the world towards
ecological bankruptcy, which has made us think about sustainable
development. The works of Kapp (1961, 1970), Grinevald (2008),
and Steffen et al. (2015) have emphasized on the need for sustainable
development as they find economies in the state of bewilderment
crossing the planetary boundaries. Guercio (2015) urged for a new
paradigm of growth where simplicity becomes the mantra. The facts
published in the United Nations Interactive Dialogue 3 about the
natural resource extraction during the 20th century is distressing, as
it has grown by a factor of 8; more specifically, extraction of construc-
tion materials grew by a factor of 34, ores and minerals by a factor of
27, and fossil fuels by a factor of 12. Thus, the major cause of
environmental degradation and climate change is undoubtedly the
high resource consumption coupled with carbon intensive polluting
technologies and processes. These facts make us realize the need for
sustainable development.
However, Luke (2005) remarked that sustainable development
project is merely an ideological construct and is neither sustainable
nor developmental. The depressing scene is that the various laudable
goals adopted by the United Nations like millennium development
goals from 2000 to 2015, which were targeted towards poverty,
equity, education, child and maternal health, environmental sustain-
ability, and global partnership, failed to meet its target. Hence, further
to meet the global challenges, the United Nations launched the largest
ever SDGs, 17 in number, which are the following: no poverty, zero
hunger, good health and well‐being, quality education, gender equal-
ity, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, decent
work and economic growth, industry innovation and infrastructure,
reduced inequalities, sustainable cities and communities, responsible
production and consumption, climate action, life below water, life on
land, peace, justice and strong institutions, and partnerships for the
goals for 2016–2030, respectively. These 17 goals are further divided
into 169 targets so that nations can move towards sustainable
development.
Sustainable development means development within ecological
limits enhancing human well‐being. For measuring human well‐being,
Human Development Index (HDI) is considered, whereas ecological
footprint per person is considered to measure sustainability.
HDI is a composite measure of education, life expectancy and per
capita income. On a scale of 0 to 1, less than 0.550 is considered low
human development, 0.550–0.699 for medium human development,
0.700–0.799 for high human development, and 0.800 or greater for
very high human development. The United Nations defines 0.7 as
the threshold for a high level of development.
Ecological footprints represent the demand human puts on
nature. With the current population, per person availability of
biologically productive surface is 1.7 global hectares (gha).
Thus, sustainable development necessitates an average ecological
footprint of not more than 1.7 gha and HDI of at least 0.7. (Global
Footprint Network, 2017; Wackernagel, Hanscom, & Lin, 2017).
3 | A S S E S S I N G SD G I N D E X F O R
S U S T A I N A B LE D E V E L O P M E N T
To track SDG achievements, Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable
Development Solutions Network (2016) have published SDG Index
which immensely under perform on sustainability. The countries
ranked high on SDGs are also high on ecological footprint and vice
versa, implying that SDGs that increase resource dependence out-
weighs the goals that decrease resource dependence. Thus, SDGs
shall further increase our demand for resources magnifying the eco-
logical deficit (Table 1).
Table 2 reveals that the three countries that comes in the sustain-
able development range do not have good ranking as regards SDGs,
which conveys that something has gone wrong in identifying SDGs.
An analysis of ecological footprints for countries reveals that 51
countries out of 152 are within global limits of 1.7 gha, but 49
countries have HDI below 0.7. These are the countries that can evolve
to develop their people using the ecological reserves. Eighty‐five
countries have high HDI value, but equally surprising is that 82
countries have ecological footprint far above the limit specified of
1.7 gha. These countries are responsible for the ecological bankruptcy
the world is facing. Hence, an urgent need for them is to curtail their
ecological consumption for the betterment of the world.
JAIN AND JAIN 3

TABLE 1 Top 10 countries in SDG Index and their ecological 4 | INCREASING CONSUMERISM AND ITS
footprint IMPACT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
SDG Index score Total ecological
S. no. Country (Rank; 2017) footprint (2016) “Consumerism is a situation when too much attention is given to
1 Sweden 85.61 (1) 4.98 buying and owning things which are not really necessary” as defined
2 Denmark 84.16 (2) 5.79 by Cambridge Dictionary. A society with higher levels of consumption
3 Finland 84.02 (3) 9.31 can thrive due to the simultaneous and unmindful production leading
4 Norway 83.94 (4) 5.28 to increased extraction of natural resources, thereby decaying the
5 Czech Republic 81.90 (5) 5.51 environment. Rothman (1998) has emphasized that consumption and
6 Germany 81.68 (6) 5.3 its pattern have the power to dictate production. Hence, if the
7 Austria 81.42 (7) 5.57 demand for goods and services decreases, the production shall
8 Switzerland 81.18 (8) 5.6 ultimately decline. Duchin (1998) regarded consumerism as an
9 Slovenia 80.54 (9) 7.97 appropriate tool to measure global environmental impact. It can
10 France 80.32 (10) 8.17 directly assess the impact through the amount of garbage creation
India 58.07 (113) 1.16 and car usage; indirectly, the impact can be assessed by accounting

Note. SDG: Sustainable Development Goal.

Source: http://www.sdgindex.org/; https://www.kaggle.com/footprint
network/ecological‐footprint/data
the production activities. Studies of authors like Stern, Common, and
Barbier (1996), Ekins (1997), Rothman (1998), and Suri and Chapman
(1998) also substantiate consumer‐based approach for measuring the
environmental impact.
Sustainable consumption plays a prominent role in sustainable

TABLE 2 Countries in the sustainable development range out of 152 well‐being of the society. (Caeiro, Ramos, & Huisingh, 2012). Oslo
countries Ministerial Roundtable (1994) covered the environmental, social, and
economic aspect in its definition of sustainable consumption and defined
SDG Index score HDI Total ecological
S. no. Country (Rank; 2017) (2016) footprint (2016) sustainable consumption as “using goods and resources for fulfilling basic
1 Georgia 68.58 (64) 0.75 1.58 needs which ensures a better quality of life while lowering the use of
2 Dominican 67.22 (68) 0.71 1.53 natural resources; emission of waste, pollutants and toxic materials so
Republic that it does not jeoparadise the needs of future generations.”
3 Sri Lanka 65.91 (78) 0.75 1.32 Increasing consumption by the households has adversely
India 58.07 (113) 0.6 1.16 impacted sustainability (Bartolj, Murovec, & Slabe‐Erker, 2018;
Note. HDI: Human Development Index; SDG: Sustainable Development Goal. Rockstrom et al., 2009). Even the environment‐friendly innovation in
Source: http://www.sdgindex.org/; https://www.kaggle.com/footprintnet- products and technology has been undermined by the increasing
work/ecological‐footprint/data. volumes of goods consumed and discarded (Geyer & Zacarias, 2002).
The economic logic of growth dynamism and social logic of crave for
social status have boosted consumerism. Ritzer, 2004 the economic
Looking to individual countries' biocapacity, 109 countries have growth model based on the profit motive has fostered innovation. This
biocapacity deficit, and the remaining (152–109) 43 countries have innovation has led to production of refined and cheap products, and
biocapacity reserve. Although India is within the global measure of these products are demanded by the consumers who are in the midst
ecological footprint, but analyzing its situation with its total of social complexity.
biocapacity, it is presently running an ecological deficit of −0.71. India The emphasis on technical and economic efficiency has led to
needs to take it seriously (Table 3). more output with less inputs and cost minimization, respectively.
Emma Mawdsley (2004) has rightly remarked that Indian middle Joseph Schumpeter (1934) while analyzing the theory of economic
class is crazy to adopt western culture, and they are blindly following development emphasized that economic growth is driven through
the western lifestyles giving way to consumerism. One of the innovation and “creative destruction,” which refers to the demise of
foremost reasons for biocapacity deficit is increasing consumerism the old products and processes and its replacement by new ones
the world over. The question that needs attention is how to curtail due to innovation mechanism. Firms that fail to produce and market
the excessive consumption to attain sustainable development. newer and cheaper products risk their own survival. The cheaper
products have either increased its own demand or diverted the
savings to other products leading to a rebound effect. The rebound
effect and creative destruction have led to more products being
TABLE 3 Biocapacity deficit in India (2016) produced and consumed. Thus, achieving efficiency in production is
Total ecological Total Biocapacity not a guarantee for sustainability.
footprint biocapacity deficit Jackson (2009) while analyzing the social logic of consumerism
India 1.16 0.45 −0.71 has highlighted the symbolic expression, which goods carry for those

Source: https://www.kaggle.com/footprintnetwork/ecological‐footprint/ who possess them. Apart from satiating the survival needs, consumer-
data. ism has fostered due to its affiliation to social identity. Media today
4 JAIN AND JAIN

through messages and images seek to promote a totally materialistic
way of life. Advertising seeks to make people want what they do
not need, creating new desires throughout their whole life.
Gabor Harangozo et al. (2018) remarked that transition to a
sustainable growth model through curbing consumerism has been
due to lack of practical experience in enhancing subjective well‐being
through sustainable lifestyles. Policies and democratic response is the
need of the hour, if we have to stay away from crisis.
the crowd), humility, tendency to ask “WHY”, ability to reframe,
positive use of adversity, and sense of vocation (feeling of serving
and giving back).
This model does not overlook the development needs in the less
developed countries but aspires for degrowth of the developed world
where increasing consumerism is leading them towards a garbage
economy.
The eco‐spiritual model is outlined as

ES ¼ fðEF; HDI; SQÞ;

5 | CURBING CONSUMERISM THROUGH

where ES represents eco‐spiritual model, EF is ecological footprint,
E C O ‐ S P I R I T U A L M O D E L O F S U S TA I N A B L E
HDI is Human Development Index, and SQ is spiritual quotient.
D E V E L O P M E NT
Various indices have been developed to measure sustainable
development, like Ecological Footprint Index, Greendex, Happy Planet
John Stuart Mill (1848) in the 19th century anticipated the increase in
Index, HDI, Sustainable Competitiveness Index, and so forth, each
conspicuous consumption and advocated that economies should
having its own strength and limitation. But an important component
aspire for the “stationary state” once it reaches to an optimum level
to measure sustainable development is the spiritual dimension. The
and aspire for more satisfying pursuits of life. Herman Daly (1996) in
spiritual dimension needs to be measured by developing the SQ Index
Beyond Growth remarks about the outcome of the ever increasing
of the countries.
consumption through an adage “When a boat is too full, obviously it
Data of ecological footprint and HDI are readily available of the
is more likely to sink.” He outlined the policy framework for sustain-
countries, but the SQ index of countries is not available, thus limiting
ability wherein he mentioned: “Consumption of natural capital should
the calculation of eco‐spiritual index of the countries. The study rec-
not be treated as income; taxes on resource extraction should be more
ommends that international organizations should look into developing
as compared to tax on income and labour; the philosophy of global
the SQ index of the countries as this shall be an important step in
economic integration (free trade and free mobility of capital) should
directing the accomplishment of SDGs.
be abandoned; in the short run there should be efforts to maximize
The paper proposes that countries ranking high on SQ shall
the productivity of natural capital and investment should be there to
definitely have people who are visionary, value laden, logical, and
enhance its supply in the long run.”
having a sense of serving and giving back. This shall foster in reducing
The inadequacy of economic theory and models to explain the
the ecological footprints and enabling high human development.
complex structures with its simplified assumptions and rationality of
The complexity of the modern economic life makes it impossible
human behavior forces us to move beyond economic theory to find
for governments to enforce all contracts. For a successful society, indi-
answers and solutions to the present‐day challenges. Economic
viduals need to abide to certain codes of behavior, which are harmoni-
analysis has largely been concerned with analyzing the positives such
ous and compassionate in nature. Self‐enforcement to certain moral
as the multiplier effect of investment overlooking the negative side
norms is the key to harmonious development (Kaushik Basu, 2018).
such as depleted resources and polluted environments undermining
Elgin and Mitchell (1977) and Schreurs (2010) stressed on voluntary
the social and environmental costs of production (Georgescu‐
simplicity to address increasing consumerism and increase subjective
Roegen, 1971). Tamas (1999) outlined that the governments of the
well‐being. Measuring sustainability of household consumption gives
world have shown keen interest in spiritual (which pertains to higher
individuals a feel that they can make a difference and thus encourage
endowments of the mind) development at various development fora,
the promotion of sustainable behavior (Bartolj et al., 2018; Hanss,
but the spiritual vision initiatives remain unexplored. Excluding the
Bohm, Doran, & Homburg, 2016).
spiritual element from the development process is like eliminating
Thus, countries having high SQ will tend to be logically negating
the vitality and making it a hollow, mechanistic husk. A profound
conspicuous consumption as these countries' individuals are aware,
reorientation to the development process can be brought through
value‐led, and have a sense of serving and giving back to society,
the spiritual dimension, and much needs to be accomplished in this
which shall automatically lead to low ecological footprint and high
direction.
HDI. Thus, high SQ and sustainable development are positively
Making human being rational and curbing consumerism shall
correlated.
require transcending from economic growth to eco‐spiritual growth
model. The eco‐spiritual model for sustainable development focuses
to optimize development within ecological boundaries by attaining 6 | RELEVANCE OF SPIRITUALITY FOR
high spiritual quotient (SQ). S U S T A I N A B LE D E V E L O P M E N T
The term spiritual quotient was coined by Danah Zohar and
Ian Marshall (2000) in their pioneering work on SQ: Connecting Spirituality transcends the realms of science and religion. Scientific
with Our Spiritual Intelligence. They have outlined 12 principles: self‐ knowledge aims to explore the nature of reality in the physical realm.
awareness, spontaneity, being vision and value‐led, holism, compas- It has provided mankind power to have control over matter and forces
sion, celebration of diversity, field independence (standing against of nature to attain comfort and ease. No doubt science has explored
JAIN AND JAIN
various fields such as genetics, microbiology, medicine, electronics,
optics, and computer technology, but due to the lack of spiritual
wisdom, its results are shortsighted. The objective of scientific
knowledge was to solve the riddle of life and the cosmos but has failed
in both, and it has raised more questions than solved. It has pushed
the world from the age of arrows and sword to the age of atomic
bombs and star wars.
Religion aimed at explaining the mankind its true identity
specified certain code of conduct to avoid suffering to him and to
others. It aimed at preaching noble goals for giving purpose to the life.
Even though religious beliefs have scientific logic, they do not have
universal appeal, and so in principle, very few follow them. Those
who have religiously followed the noble ideals prescribed in their
religion have definitely benefited. Today, religious intolerance has
resulted in violence and bloodshed. In essence, all the religions
together have failed to create a better world for the mankind.
Spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives,
but in general, it means to have a deep and clear understanding of
the self and finding the “real meaning” and purpose of our life by
developing a strong connection with the Supreme Being. Spirituality
dwells in soul consciousness. The realm of spirituality is to focus on
the conscient being and not the physical being. The Bhagwat Gita, a
book of spiritual wisdom, is called “Sarva Shastra Shiromani,” which
means the supreme scripture and is acknowledged as a unique treatise
on the philosophy of life. It has a universal appeal, as it is one of the
most translated scriptures. It talks about Swadharma: religion of the
self (soul) that is purity, peace, love, happiness, power, and bliss. The
vices that are prevalent today such as lust, anger, greed, attachment,
and ego are all due to body consciousness. The Bhagwat Gita tells
us how we can win these inner battles and emerge as better human
beings, free from all bondages. At the individual level, it is a valuable
and inspiring handbook for self‐transformation, but at a larger level,
it is blueprint for a new world order.
6.1 | Spirituality: A pathway to curb consumerism
Increasing consumerism draws our attention to the second law of
thermodynamics, which states that every time energy is transformed
from one state to another, there is loss in that form of energy, which
becomes available to perform work of some kind. This kind of loss or
wastage is termed as entropy. Thus, this law explains that the total
entropy of the word is constantly increasing. It is an irony that scien-
tists themselves have not given the seriousness to the implication of
the second law of thermodynamics but promoted high‐entropy
civilization.
One of the popular Indian adage says that “though man himself
grows physically old, his desires grow young and become more
compelling.” Spiritual wisdom enjoins on man to lead a life of
simplicity, moderation, and minimum desires. It urges one not to run
for worldly luxuries and pleasures. A saint‐poet Bhatri Hari has rightly
remarked “The thrust of strength of our desires does not weaken; it is
we who weaken. It is not we who consume things but the things
consume us too. It is not the time that is moving or marching fast; it
is we who our moving towards our death.”
5
Hence, simplicity, minimization of desires, and consumption are
the fundamental principles of spirituality. A simple life is all about
sticking to the basics and discarding the unnecessary. Spirituality
teaches one to cut down on extravagance and make room for greater
meaning and momentum in life. Consumerist lifestyle struggles with
never‐ending desires; simple living finds pleasure in serving others.
Thus, simplicity is not poverty; in fact, it is the mark of royalty that
is anchored in contentment.
Spirituality teaches one to stand by values, even though when
everyone else is on the unethical path. It stresses not to emulate a
characterless person in life but develop the courage to follow the
spiritual principles through the practice of Rajyoga meditation by
connecting with the Supreme as mentioned in Bhagwat Gita. Rajyoga
meditation helps one to move beyond ordinary consciousness and
emerge the true self, which is filled with purity, bliss, love, and
compassion. This awareness helps individuals to develop pure and
positive thoughts and bring out their relevance and impact on the
outer world. It makes one realize that the outer environment can be
changed with a profound shift in the mindset. Thus, the starting step
towards sustainable development is when the subtle shift occurs in
the mindset, where people start valuing simplicity and economizing
resources. This soul empowerment regains the authority to direct its
mind and body to act as it desires, as against being compelled to act
by the pull of the body.
To increase the SQ for the betterment and welfare of the society,
appropriate signals need to be given to the society at large to develop
them. The principles of Bhagwat Gita (practicing moderation in all
activities, respect for nature, avoidance of waste, keeping the social
interests before self‐interest, freedom from greed, etc.) needs to be
talked at various platforms especially where world leaders discuss
the issue of sustainability. Like SDGs were taken up with consensus
of 193 member states and civil society, similarly, spirituality needs
attention of the world leaders to be practiced at the global level.
Curbing consumerism shall necessitate campaigning of spiritual
principles by media, government, and international organizations,
rewarding altruistic behaviors, taxing the conspicuous consumption,
monitoring innovation, and discouraging creative destruction of
products. Guercio (2015) insisted on the need of public policy
advocating new standard of social behavior where nature and human
values are given prominence than economic interests.
7 | CO NC LUSIO N
Relentless economic expansion based on consumerism has brought
inequity and ecological bankruptcy. The underdeveloped world needs
growth, but the developed world requires degrowth for not merely
sustenance but for reasons long sought by the human spirit. The
analysis in this paper suggests that the recently announced SDGs are
directed towards unsustainability, which is really a matter of great
concern. Majority of the countries have become ecologically bankrupt,
and the rest are in the process of becoming so. Friend (1992) has
rightly remarked “The present scenario of environmental deterioration
and resource scarcity demands a new model and policy approach to
6 JAIN AND JAIN
achieve an ecosystem integrity and a harmonious balance between
economic needs and natural resource stock.”
The growth dynamism which has fostered innovation and creative
destruction as well as, the crave for social status have boosted
consumerism. Curbing consumerism shall require transcending from
economic growth to eco‐spiritual growth model to optimize
development within ecological boundaries by attaining high SQ. The
eco‐spiritual model is a function of HDI, ecological footprint, and SQ.
Assadourian (2016) has rightly remarked that sustainable develop-
ment shall be possible only when there is change in the dominant
cultural paradigm, where individuals by default act sustainably. Hence,
spiritual principles need to be promoted by governments, schools,
media, and institutions at large. Individuals following the same need
to be applauded and rewarded. The paper concludes that developing
SQ shall lead to responsible consumption, thus reducing ecological
footprints and enhancing high human development.
ORCID
Prerna Jain https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5378-8212
RE FE R ENC E S
Assadourian, E. (2016). Degrowth and the relationship between consumer-
ism and sustainability. The Beam No. 3. Retrieved from https://medium.
com/thebeammagazine/eric‐assadourian‐f049886e19f9. Accessed on
December 2, 2018.
Barros, O. (2012). The “normal new” Brazilian and its implications for
growth. Private in Focus No. 48.
Bartolj, T., Murovec, N., & Slabe‐Erker, R. (2018). Development of a house-
hold sustainable consumption index and its application to EU‐28.
Sustainable Development, 26, 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1689
Basu, K. (2018). Why morality matters to economics. Indian Express April 13,
2018. Retrieved from http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/col-
umns/why‐morality‐matters‐to‐economics corruption‐fiscal‐policies‐
indian‐economy‐the‐wealth‐of‐nations‐5135250/. Accessed on April
17, 2018.
Caeiro, S., Ramos, T. B., & Huisingh, D. (2012). Procedures and criteria to
develop and evaluate household sustainable consumption indicators.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 27, 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2011.12.026
Daly, H. (1996). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Duchin, F. (1998). Structural economics: Measuring change in technology,
lifestyles and the environment. Washington DC: Island Press.
Ekins, P. (1997). The Kuznets curve for the environment and economic
growth: Examining the evidence. Environmental Planning A, 29,
805–830. https://doi.org/10.1068/a290805
Elgin, D., & Mitchell, A. (1977). Voluntary simplicity (3). In Coevolution
Quarterly, Summer, 4.
FEEM (2011). Sustainability index. Methodological report. (Online).
Retrieved from http://www.feemsi.org/documents/metodological
report2011.pdf.
Friend, A. M. (1992). Economics, ecology and sustainable development: Are
they compatible? Environmental Values, 1(2), 157–170. White Horse
Press: UK. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30301274, https://doi.org/
10.3197/096327192776680142
Galbraith, J. K. (1958). The affluent society. New York: Mentor Press.
Georgescu‐Roegen, N. (1971). The entropy law and the economic process.
Boston: Harvard University Press.
Geyer, A. E., & Zacarias, F. A. (2002). Towards sustainable household
consumption: Trends and policies in OECD countries. Organisation
for Economic Co‐operation and Development.
Global Footprint Network (2017). Advancing the science of sustainability.
Retrieved from https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our‐work/sustain-
able‐development/. Accessed on January 9, 2018.
Grinevald, J. (2008). Georgescu‐Rogen, bioeconomia e biosfera. In M.
Bonaiuti (Ed.), Obiettivo decrescita. Bologna: Editrice Missionaria Italiana.
Guercio, M. R. (2015). Sustainability and economic de‐growth. In brief of
GSDR 2015. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/
content/documents/6534116_Guercio.pdf. Accessed on October 11,
2018.
Hanss, D., Bohm, G., Doran, R., & Homburg, A. (2016). Sustainable consump-
tion of groceries: The importance of believing that one can contribute to
sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 24, 357–370.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1615. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1615
Harangozo, G., Csutora, M., & Kocsis, T. (2018). How big is big enough?
Toward a sustainable future by examining alternatives to the conven-
tional economic growth paradigm. Sustainable Development, 26,
172–181. Wiley: US. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1728. Accessed on
May 11, 2018.
Hay, R. (2006). Becoming Ecosynchronous, Part 2. Achieving Sustainable
Development via Personal Development. Sustainable Development, 14,
1–15. http://www.interscience.wiley.com. https://doi.org/10.1002/
sd.257
Hediger, W. (2006). Weak and strong sustainability, environmental
conservation and economic growth. Natural Resource Modeling, 19(3),
359–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939‐7445.2006.tb00185.x
Interactive dialogue 3 (2015). Fostering sustainable economic growth and
transformation and promoting sustainable consumption and produc-
tion. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
events/interactive‐dialogue‐3/. Accessed on August 11, 2018.
Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth. Retrieved from http://
archive.ipu.org/splz‐e/unga13/prosperity.pdf. Accessed on February
13, 2018.
Kapp, K. W. (1961). Towards a science of man in society: A positive approach
to the integration of social knowledge. The Hague, Netherlands:
Martinus Nijhoff.
Kapp, K. W. (1970). Environmental disruptions and social costs: A
challenge to economists. Kyklos, 23, 833–847. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467‐6435.1970.tb01047.x
Khan, M. A. (2015). Putting ‘good society’ ahead of the economy: Overcom-
ing neoliberalism's growth trap and its costly consequences. Sustainable
Development, 23(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1571. https://
doi.org/10.1002/sd.1571
Luke, T. W. (2005). Neither sustainable nor development: Reconsidering
sustainability in development. Sustainable Development, 13, 228–238.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.284
Mawdesley, E. (2004). India's middle classes and the environment. Develop-
ment and Change., 35(1), 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐
7660.2004.00343.x
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. (1972). The
limits to growth. A report for the club of Rome's project on the
predicament of mankind. New York, NY: Universe.
Mill, J. (1848). Of the stationary state. In Principles of political economy, book
IV: Influence of the progress of society. London: Longmans, Green & Co.
Orecchia, C., & Zoppoli, P. (2007). Consumerism and environment: Does
consumption behavior affect environmental quality? Tor Vergata Uni-
versity, CEIS, Departmental Working Papers. 10.2139/ssrn.1719507.
Oslo Ministerial Roundtable. (1994). Oslo Roundtable on sustainable produc-
tion and consumption. Ministry of the Environment Norway, Oslo.
JAIN AND JAIN
Ritzer, G. (2004). The McDonaldization of society. New York: Pine Forge
Press.
Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S. III, Lambin, E.,
… Nykvist, B. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating
space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/
ES‐03180‐140232
Rothman, D. S. (1998). Environmental kuznets curves real progress or pass-
ing the buck? A case for consumption‐based approaches. Ecological
Economics, 25, 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921‐8009(97)
00179‐1
Sadhguru (2016). Inner engineering: A yogi's guide to joy (pp. 25–39).
Penguin Random House: India.
Schreurs, J. (2010). Living with less: Prospects for sustainability. Maastricht,
The Netherlands: Schrijen –Lippertz.
Schumpeter, J. (1934. Reprinted 2008). The theory of economic develop-
ment. London: Transaction Publishers.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett,
E. M., … Folke, C. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human
development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855.
Stern, D. I., Common, M. S., & Barbier, E. b. (1996). Economic growth and
environmental degradation: The environmental Kuznets curve and
sustainable development. World Development, 24(7), 1151–1160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0305‐750X(96)00032‐0
7
Stiftung, B., & Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) (2016).
SDG index and dashboards website. Retrieved from http://www.
sdgindex.org/data/index/. Accessed on January 16, 2018.
Suri, V., & Chapman, D. (1998). Economic growth, trade and energy: Impli-
cations for the environmental kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 25,
195–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921‐8009(97)00180‐8
Tamas, A. (1999). Spirituality and development: Concepts and categories.
In Journal of Bahai's Studies. Retrieved from http://www.tamas.com/
samples/source%252520docs/spirit%252526devt.pdf. Accessed on
November 12, 2018.
Wackernagel, M., Hanscom, L., & Lin, D. (2017). Making the sustainable
development goals consistent with sustainability. Front. Energy
Resources, 5, 18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2017.00018 Accessed
on February 17, 2018.
Zohar, D., & Marshall, I. (2000). SQ: Connecting with our spiritual intelligence.
London: Bloomsbury.
How to cite this article: Jain P, Jain P. Ensuring sustainable
development by curbing consumerism: An eco‐spiritual per-
spective. Sustainable Development. 2019;1–7. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sd.1935